Why should it be any different when Abby knew exactly what she was getting into when she signed Ilsa's contract?

But Abby didn't know what she was getting into. She knew what she was going to get if she signed; not what she'd be signing away in order to get what she wanted (in her haste to get those succubus attributes. she only thought to ask what price she paid after Chloe told her she sold her soul).

Perhaps, but Prudence has the mentality of a child and while I could get into an endless argument about that I won't because they aren't real people. You do realize that right? This isn't a true story made into a webcomic. It's all played for laughs, but comedy is subjective even before people lost their sense of humor and became overly sensitive misery guts.

It's a form of media that is for public consumption. People are allowed to give opinions on it - good or bad. And most times, if a child character in put into a situation they have no business being in - especially if it involves something of a sexual nature - people are going to be heavily critical of it; despite the fact it's a fictional character.

At least we don't resort to condescending jabs at people who disagree with our opinions.

Why should it be any different when Abby knew exactly what she was getting into when she signed Ilsa's contract?

Perhaps, but Prudence has the mentality of a child and while I could get into an endless argument about that I won't because they aren't real people. You do realize that right? This isn't a true story made into a webcomic. It's all played for laughs, but comedy is subjective even before people lost their sense of humor and became overly sensitive misery guts.

Except Abby didn't. She didn't exactly go through the contract with a fine tooth comb before she signed it and, as the page you linked to showed, it hadn't even occurred to her that she might be selling her soul.

Abby never actually signed away her soul because Ilsa thought it would be more interesting if she retained that, but even if that was lost in the bargain she had plenty of time to read over the contract. She signed it immediately because she wanted all the advantages of being a succubus without ever thinking of the drawbacks. If anything she's more culpable in her predicament than Teddy was when an ancient idol started speaking to him and asked him to make a wish. It never gave a disclaimer saying "not responsible for eternal damnation of immortal soul."

And if this is all comedy and played for laughs why should it bother you if Prudence was seeing the video? When did you lose your sense of humour and become an "overly sensitive misery guts"?

It would bother me if she was there because it would be out of character. Prudence is established as an innocent and naive character so there is no way she would be watching this. I shrug off the moral issues for the sake of a good story with the emphasis on good story. If a character does something out of character without a satisfactory explanation that bothers me. I am slightly curious as to why Charity would be there since she was only attracted to Teddi not Teddy and seems to have too much animosity with Chloe to be interested in watching her have sex, but it's been established that she's got some kinks so her presence there is acceptable.

This comic is emotionally crippled. Its central relationship is a dumpster fire. Every single thing about this particular strip is ugly. Alchemy's presence makes me scratch my head at where she's been all this time. I've got nothing else at this point, folks.

Yes yes, that's all very well & good, but how do you really feel?
Also: Glenn Ficarra & John Requa called; they want their dialouge back, or at least credit.

Dave reads these forums, and thinks all the pearl clutching is hilarious.

At least someone finds the bluenoses' unending fucking one-note repeat-ad-nauseam droning-whining-moaning-bellyaching-bitching-crying-hairpulling-repressed-arousal-vapours shtick entertaining. Their Can't-Change-Their-Minds-&-Can't-Change-The-Subject bullocks is as tedious as it is predictable by now.

Y'know, I considered doing a long, detailed response to this, but I've decided on a different tactic: something short and sweet.

If people vacating these forums because of toxicity is true, I find it much more plausible that they left because of people like you, Fairy Glade's Fairy/Rosa and Vitocap than because of people like me. If all you can only respond to criticisms of this comic in the most incendiary, gadfly-ish manner possible, then I pity you. And it's slightly comforting to know I don't base my self worth on... whatever it is you do. At least I have that going for me.

Abby never actually signed away her soul because Ilsa thought it would be more interesting if she retained that, but even if that was lost in the bargain she had plenty of time to read over the contract. She signed it immediately because she wanted all the advantages of being a succubus without ever thinking of the drawbacks.

It would bother me if she was there because it would be out of character. Prudence is established as an innocent and naive character so there is no way she would be watching this. I shrug off the moral issues for the sake of a good story with the emphasis on good story. If a character does something out of character without a satisfactory explanation that bothers me. I am slightly curious as to why Charity would be there since she was only attracted to Teddi not Teddy and seems to have too much animosity with Chloe to be interested in watching her have sex, but it's been established that she's got some kinks so her presence there is acceptable.

Abby is a pre teen who was handed a contract and told it gave her everything she wanted. Surprisingly enough she signed it without too much thought. Isn't it odd what young kids will do. I wonder if perhaps that's why we have rules around what age people can sign legally binding contracts?

Innocent and naive characters often end up doing things you wouldn't expect them too for humorous effect in fact putting them into incongruous situations and making a joke out of their reactions is often the main reason for them being there. We've already seen that in this comic with Chloe and Pandora explaining the facts of life to Abby. Who, however mischievous she may be, was certainly innocent and naive when it came to relationships.

In fact the humour only worked if Abby was naive and innocent because any normal person with the least interest is romance/sex would have known pretty instantly that what the two succubi was saying was total bollocks.

So any good writer could easily find comedy potential in Prudence reacting to seeing Teddy and Chloe getting it on.

Abby never actually signed away her soul because Ilsa thought it would be more interesting if she retained that, but even if that was lost in the bargain she had plenty of time to read over the contract. She signed it immediately because she wanted all the advantages of being a succubus without ever thinking of the drawbacks.

It would bother me if she was there because it would be out of character. Prudence is established as an innocent and naive character so there is no way she would be watching this. I shrug off the moral issues for the sake of a good story with the emphasis on good story. If a character does something out of character without a satisfactory explanation that bothers me. I am slightly curious as to why Charity would be there since she was only attracted to Teddi not Teddy and seems to have too much animosity with Chloe to be interested in watching her have sex, but it's been established that she's got some kinks so her presence there is acceptable.

Abby is a pre teen who was handed a contract and told it gave her everything she wanted. Surprisingly enough she signed it without too much thought. Isn't it odd what young kids will do. I wonder if perhaps that's why we have rules around what age people can sign legally binding contracts?

Yes, it does seem surprising that Abby's contract is binding. If it were that easy to get people to sign away their souls demons would be out every Christmas granting wishes for souls so perhaps there's a reason they've never elaborated on.

Innocent and naive characters often end up doing things you wouldn't expect them too for humorous effect in fact putting them into incongruous situations and making a joke out of their reactions is often the main reason for them being there. We've already seen that in this comic with Chloe and Pandora explaining the facts of life to Abby. Who, however mischievous she may be, was certainly innocent and naive when it came to relationships.

In fact the humour only worked if Abby was naive and innocent because any normal person with the least interest is romance/sex would have known pretty instantly that what the two succubi was saying was total bollocks.

So any good writer could easily find comedy potential in Prudence reacting to seeing Teddy and Chloe getting it on.

If Prudence stumbled on Chloe and Teddy doing the deed that would be hilarious, but highly unlikely unless she flew in to pay Abby a visit and entered through the wrong window. Sitting down to watch, however, would be completely out of character.

All Pandora would have to do is tell Prudence there was cake and she'd do anything. And you don't think Pandora wouldn't jump at the chance of pranking Prudence? Seems to me that would totally be in character for Pandora.

But maybe since Prudence is so dense that she thinks just eating Devil's food cake will get her into trouble perhaps even Pandora thinks she's too easy.

Why should it be any different when Abby knew exactly what she was getting into when she signed Ilsa's contract?

But Abby didn't know what she was getting into. She knew what she was going to get if she signed; not what she'd be signing away in order to get what she wanted (in her haste to get those succubus attributes. she only thought to ask what price she paid after Chloe told her she sold her soul).

Perhaps, but Prudence has the mentality of a child and while I could get into an endless argument about that I won't because they aren't real people. You do realize that right? This isn't a true story made into a webcomic. It's all played for laughs, but comedy is subjective even before people lost their sense of humor and became overly sensitive misery guts.

It's a form of media that is for public consumption. People are allowed to give opinions on it - good or bad. And most times, if a child character in put into a situation they have no business being in - especially if it involves something of a sexual nature - people are going to be heavily critical of it; despite the fact it's a fictional character.

At least we don't resort to condescending jabs at people who disagree with our opinions.

That all said, people should've thought of all that, before they started reading a comic that basically had a child succubus. This is just an extension of Eerie Cuties.

That all said, people should've thought of all that, before they started reading a comic that basically had a child succubus. This is just an extension of Eerie Cuties.

Abby is, what, the age of Chloe when she first appeared in EC?

Except this comic never was about a child succubus (not until Abby made herself into one, anyway). By the end of EC, Chloe was sixteen - the legal age of consent in Canada. And when DC started, she was an adult succubus. So - with the exception of her stupidity later in the comic (which took RL years to get to that point), none of what she got up to in DC bothered anyone.

That all said, people should've thought of all that, before they started reading a comic that basically had a child succubus. This is just an extension of Eerie Cuties.

Abby is, what, the age of Chloe when she first appeared in EC?

The cast page listed Chloe as 14 when she first appeared in EC. Abby was 11 at the start of DC.

EC and MC were PG-13 and extremely light on sexual activity. In EC, the most you'd see was a makeoutsession. MC went slightly further, but all sex was either implied, or happened off-panel.

DC started off as a PG-13 comic, but gradually shifted to R-rated territory.

Except its not fully R-rated and I think that's a major reason why its been struggling. If they'd said right at the beginning "lets make this a sex comedy with gothic and horror sections, make sure everyone is over the age of consent and throw it up on Slipshine" it would have been amazing. Instead, its just kind of wrestling within its constraints and faceplants onto the dirt. The EC crowd dislikes it because there's all these "almost but not quite" sex scenes getting in the way of the plot and the R-rated crowd is frustrated by the need to keep it all PG-13.

I think it really hurts strips like this recent one, where Teddy and Chloe boning has been one of the core plot points and perhaps could have benefited from being fleshed out, if you'll excuse the pun. Maybe seeing the sex start as feral demon and then turn into genuine love and passion as it continues, ending with the two of them cuddling happily afterwards type of thing. Something tasteful.

Tasteful, ofc, meaning not having an 11 year old child watching her brother f***.

This comic is emotionally crippled. Its central relationship is a dumpster fire. Every single thing about this particular strip is ugly. Alchemy's presence makes me scratch my head at where she's been all this time. I've got nothing else at this point, folks.

Yes yes, that's all very well & good, but how do you really feel?
Also: Glenn Ficarra & John Requa called; they want their dialouge back, or at least credit.

Dave reads these forums, and thinks all the pearl clutching is hilarious.

At least someone finds the bluenoses' unending fucking one-note repeat-ad-nauseam droning-whining-moaning-bellyaching-bitching-crying-hairpulling-repressed-arousal-vapours shtick entertaining. Their Can't-Change-Their-Minds-&-Can't-Change-The-Subject bullocks is as tedious as it is predictable by now.

Y'know, I considered doing a long, detailed response to this, but I've decided on a different tactic: something short and sweet.

If people vacating these forums because of toxicity is true, I find it much more plausible that they left because of people like you, Fairy Glade's Fairy/Rosa and Vitocap than because of people like me. If all you can only respond to criticisms of this comic in the most incendiary, gadfly-ish manner possible, then I pity you. And it's slightly comforting to know I don't base my self worth on... whatever it is you do. At least I have that going for me.

Careful all that salt doesn't give you health problems.

Yeah, i noticed that FGF and Rosa were banned and Vito hasn't posted in a while. What happened there?

I am Suleviir, Paladin of Iomede, Goddess of Valor. Those who do evil shall fear my blade.

Yeah, i noticed that FGF and Rosa were banned and Vito hasn't posted in a while. What happened there?

iirc, Error of Logic suspected Rosa was FGF's alt. account because of how similar their posts were and that they were mostly self-congratulatory, so Don did an IP check and discovered EoL's hunch was correct, so FGF/Rosa got banned. Vito just stopped posting soon afterward.

I wonder about the "full activation of powers" means she entirely bypassed the "needs" issues and rage details. Like part of Chloe's issue is that she had been going tthrough growth fairly early no? Kind of hoping that she completely bypasses any issues and just gets to enjoy super powers. andappaarentlyh using it against hell now.

If she has to go through the power growht pain thing. then she's gonna have it far worse than Chloe due to her soul. Chloe nearly killed herself over it all, so unless abby goes evil pretty fast i'm gonna guess her soul is gonna have some serious conflict after a while. though being in that house tends to make people evil.

Presumably this will be covered after Chloe and Ted get that crap out of their system and remember other people exist with regards to his god powers.
I am assuming, in some fashion, that what Abby paid will be paid by her brother and/or chloe. Using "family rights" subclause of some kind.

Last edited by Zellgato on Fri Apr 05, 2019 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It's a form of media that is for public consumption. People are allowed to give opinions on it - good or bad. And most times, if a child character in put into a situation they have no business being in - especially if it involves something of a sexual nature - people are going to be heavily critical of it; despite the fact it's a fictional character.

Except that your opinions are inconsistent and designed around a preconceived belief that a particular character is terrible. You consider Prudence to be a centuries old angel and yet I remember you arguing about how Ginger and Jordan took advantage of Charity who by your present logic would be considerably older. As such she would be well over the legal drinking age.

It's just like when I heard all the complaining about how Teddi was a terrible person for taking advantage of everyone affected by the pheromones and when she saved Autumn's life when she nearly overdosed she's a terrible person for interfering in the natural order of things.